Lorain man wins appeal on gun possession, case back to county court

AKRON — A Lorain man who had his firearms taken away from him by the Oberlin Police Department, gets another chance to plead his case after the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed a decision made by Oberlin Municipal Court.
Joseph Wysocki was arrested in April 2010 and his two firearms were taken away from him. Wysocki then sued the Oberlin Police Department for not giving them back.
According to court records, Wysocki was arrested after he punched and slammed his victim to the ground and broke the person’s cell phone in half. He also pulled the house phone cord from the wall. The victim was taken to the hospital with visible injuries and young children were present during the incident.
Wysocki was originally charged with domestic violence and the court issued a temporary protection order against him. After he pleaded no contest to criminal mischief in a plea bargain, the protection order was lifted. Even though his case was in Oberlin Municipal Court, Lorain County Common Pleas Court will decide the case.
According to the appeals journal entry, Wysocki moved for the court to release his firearms.
“The court found that, because the prosecution had not sought either a criminal or civil forfeiture of the firearms, it did not have the authority to release the weapons to him unless he filed a replevin action,” it said.
Replevin is a legal action to recover items.
Wysocki had sued the Police Department and the police chief to get his items back. The appellate court wrote that instead of taking testimony and evidence at the hearing, the court set a briefing schedule and each side filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Oberlin Municipal Court decided against Wysocki during the hearing and denied his motion for possession of the firearms.
The appeals court agrees with Wysocki that he is not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and is entitled to his property.
“In this case, Mr. Wysocki’s conviction was a third-degree misdemeanor,” the appeals court wrote. “If his offense had created a risk of physical harm to any person, his conviction would have been classified as a first-degree misdemeanor.”
In the entry, it also said that the activity that constitutes criminal mischief involves a crime against property rather than a person.
“This court concludes that, given the fact that he was convicted of a third-degree misdemeanor, his conviction did not involve the risk of physical harm to his victim,” the entry said.

About the Author

Kaylee is the Avon-Avon Lake reporter, but you can catch her covering different stories across the county. She is a Kent State University alumna who enjoys family, friends and everything Cleveland. Reach the author at kremington@morningjournal.com
or follow Kaylee on Twitter: @MJ_KRemington.